His idea of democracy was more about policies that are in the interests of the general population
I think representing it like that boils down to ‘good-ism’, where anything can be argued to be democracy so long as you believe or claim to believe that it’s good, and anyone you dislike is an “enemy of democracy” on the basis that they’re bad. Most people believe that democracy refers to a specific system of government, so, whether you believe words’ meanings come from what is most useful or what is most accepted, I think both point to “what the people want” being a more desirable definition of democracy, since it is at least broadly concrete and verifiable, as opposed to “what is best for the people”, which is nebulous and subject to manipulation.
Less practically, I would object to any definition of democracy in which North Korea can call itself one and not be trivially refuted.
As far as complexity goes, take Obama implementing Obama care. Before the election he made the promise of not making backroom deals and doing the reform in a way that doesn’t rise health care costs.
I think “mandate that insurance companies cover preconditions” is a concrete policy item, and “I won’t make backroom deals” isn’t really a concrete policy item. I get what you’re saying—sometimes multiple policies that are all popular contradict each other, but I don’t think this is sufficient to explain the gap between the public’s desires and the government’s actions.
NYT articles don’t replicate findings. They might be about studies that replicate findings.
As I recall, they had methodology and data collection methods outlined. I could be misremembering.
Most people believe that democracy refers to a specific system of government
Yes, to the specific system of government that are representative democracies like the United States. Most people consider systems that aren’t direct democracy but representative democracies as democracies.
You try to argue that a system like the United States that most people would consider to be a democracy isn’t.
Most people believe that democracy refers to a specific system of government, so, whether you believe words’ meanings come from what is most useful or what is most accepted, I think both point to “what the people want” being a more desirable definition of democracy
What the people want is cheaper goods and a better economy. Representative democracy allows delegating the task of finding the best policies to achieve that outcome to elected politicians. It’s not a system designed around asking people directly for the policies they want implemented.
When speaking about democracies we are talking about whether peoples interests are represented. I think it’s quite easy to argue that in North Korea people’s interests aren’t represented well quite independent from polling North Korea’s population about what policy preferences they have and comparing them to what policies get implemented.
If you ask the average North Korean whether different companies should be able to pay their employees different wages, I think there’s a good chance that the average North Korean would not say that it’s important for them to be able to do so and might say it’s fair for every worker to get the same wage. On the other, hand the fact that wages allow market dynamics to happen that make the economy work and thus is in the interest of the average North Korean is also clear.
I don’t think this is sufficient to explain the gap between the public’s desires and the government’s actions.
You are speaking about that in the abstract, not about the two as measured by the a given study. A given study can very well measure them in ways that come to strange conclusions. The fact that the study isn’t able to explain much of the government actions is an indication that it’s not good at it modeling the dynamic.
As I recall, they had methodology and data collection methods outlined. I could be misremembering.
In the age of LLMs, the effort to go to look for an article one has forgotten isn’t that high as it was a few years ago.
I think representing it like that boils down to ‘good-ism’, where anything can be argued to be democracy so long as you believe or claim to believe that it’s good, and anyone you dislike is an “enemy of democracy” on the basis that they’re bad. Most people believe that democracy refers to a specific system of government, so, whether you believe words’ meanings come from what is most useful or what is most accepted, I think both point to “what the people want” being a more desirable definition of democracy, since it is at least broadly concrete and verifiable, as opposed to “what is best for the people”, which is nebulous and subject to manipulation.
Less practically, I would object to any definition of democracy in which North Korea can call itself one and not be trivially refuted.
I think “mandate that insurance companies cover preconditions” is a concrete policy item, and “I won’t make backroom deals” isn’t really a concrete policy item. I get what you’re saying—sometimes multiple policies that are all popular contradict each other, but I don’t think this is sufficient to explain the gap between the public’s desires and the government’s actions.
As I recall, they had methodology and data collection methods outlined. I could be misremembering.
Yes, to the specific system of government that are representative democracies like the United States. Most people consider systems that aren’t direct democracy but representative democracies as democracies.
You try to argue that a system like the United States that most people would consider to be a democracy isn’t.
What the people want is cheaper goods and a better economy. Representative democracy allows delegating the task of finding the best policies to achieve that outcome to elected politicians. It’s not a system designed around asking people directly for the policies they want implemented.
When speaking about democracies we are talking about whether peoples interests are represented. I think it’s quite easy to argue that in North Korea people’s interests aren’t represented well quite independent from polling North Korea’s population about what policy preferences they have and comparing them to what policies get implemented.
If you ask the average North Korean whether different companies should be able to pay their employees different wages, I think there’s a good chance that the average North Korean would not say that it’s important for them to be able to do so and might say it’s fair for every worker to get the same wage. On the other, hand the fact that wages allow market dynamics to happen that make the economy work and thus is in the interest of the average North Korean is also clear.
You are speaking about that in the abstract, not about the two as measured by the a given study. A given study can very well measure them in ways that come to strange conclusions. The fact that the study isn’t able to explain much of the government actions is an indication that it’s not good at it modeling the dynamic.
In the age of LLMs, the effort to go to look for an article one has forgotten isn’t that high as it was a few years ago.